On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:42:26PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: [...]
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/bar/nvc0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/bar/nvc0.c
[...]
static int -nvc0_bar_ctor(struct nouveau_object *parent, struct nouveau_object *engine,
struct nouveau_oclass *oclass, void *data, u32 size,struct nouveau_object **pobject)+nvc0_bar_init_vm(struct nvc0_bar_priv *priv, int nr, int bar) {
[...]
- /* BAR3 */ ret = nouveau_gpuobj_new(nv_object(priv), NULL, 0x1000, 0, 0,
&priv->bar[0].mem);- mem = priv->bar[0].mem;
&priv->bar[nr].mem);mem = priv->bar[nr].mem; if (ret) return ret;
ret = nouveau_gpuobj_new(nv_object(priv), NULL, 0x8000, 0, 0,
&priv->bar[0].pgd);
&priv->bar[nr].pgd);
[...]
+static int +nvc0_bar_ctor(struct nouveau_object *parent, struct nouveau_object *engine,
struct nouveau_oclass *oclass, void *data, u32 size,struct nouveau_object **pobject)+{
[...]
- /* BAR3 */
- if (has_bar3) {
ret = nvc0_bar_init_vm(priv, 0, 3);
[...]
- /* BAR1 */
- ret = nvc0_bar_init_vm(priv, 1, 1); if (ret) return ret;
The calls to nvc0_bar_init_vm() are somewhat confusing in my opinion. It is hard to see from the invocation what these numbers mean and therefore distinguish which parameter is which.
Perhaps a slightly more readable way would be to pass in a pointer to a structure as second parameter instead of the index into an array. So it'd look somewhat like this:
if (has_bar3) { ret = nvc0_bar_init_vm(priv, &priv->bar[0], 3); ... } ... ret = nvc0_bar_init_vm(priv, &priv->bar[1], 1); ...
Unfortunately that would require a new type to be created for the bar[] structures, so it'd be slightly more intrusive.
Thierry